Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Hetzer

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Hetzer Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hetzer - 12/30/2011 4:48:53 PM   
vaned74

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline 		Running through the late war campaigns as Germany I notice that the Hetzer is classed as a Tank Destroyer, production is good, but, there are almost no TOEs for Germany that use "Tank Destroyers". So the Hetzers accumulate in the pool.

Fortunately for Hungary, the Hetzer is classed as a Hetzer(H) when imported and is an "assault gun" so Hungary can drop these in their rifle divisions that have a need for 30 assault guns each.

On the subject of TOEs, etc, I also note that in my 43 game the German JPz battalions all upgrade to Heavy Jagdpanzer units requiring Heavy Tank Destroyers - only choices are Jagdpanther and Nashorn. This then puts the Marders and PzJgr 1s as almost useless and close to impossible to fill out the Jpz battalions with a production rate of about 4 heavy TDs/week in '44 available for the East Front.

I also note a mass of Stug IVs and Jagdpanzer IV's starting to build in my pool in my 43 game (not in early 44) and I suspect my troops are just not interested in these new better designs either - UPDATE - I am seeing these start to go into Panzer 44 division TOEs so perhaps they will get used after all (at least the JPZ IVs).

< Message edited by vaned74 -- 12/30/2011 4:51:09 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Hetzer - 12/30/2011 5:26:10 PM   
jzardos


Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline 		I have been complaining about these type of issues as soon as I started playing and saw these crazy and unrealistic accumulations of vehicles in pools. I'm extremely disappointed in the developers and designers of WitE for not finding a solution so that the axis player can utilize the pools of vehicles that accumulate.

Here's a few solutions:
- allow for players to tweak unit ToE, pick type for AFV within AFV class (just like you can swap plane types in air group)
- allow for Axis players to make some support units for an AP expenditure ( i.e. assault gun, TD, Tank, etc.)

I've NEVER heard any argument that this would be something historical or even plausible. The answer is it would not, so there's nothing to argue. In reality the German were scrapping together whatever vehicles they could and send them to the front. Any excess vehicles would have been quickly put to use in independent units and sent to the front. The manpower needed would have been a priority to flush out crews for the vehicles.

It will be a wonderful day when I see a patch that allows the Germans to use the pools of vehicles properly.

Sorry again, but I'm very excitable when it comes to this topic because it has always been a source of frustration in the game for me.

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 2
RE: Hetzer - 12/30/2011 7:33:32 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline 		Part of this may be a simplification of production the designers chose; in real life production of equipment could bounce from one month to another.  The designers made the factories produce by the average, which sometimes created equipment pools larger than normal, at certain dates on the calendar.

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 3
RE: Hetzer - 12/30/2011 8:01:56 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		StuG IV and Hetzer (wrong name BTW) are in use by some TOE but in case of the StuG IV they may be late ones. If you run out of StuG III then the StuG IV should be used to substitute them.
1944 Volksgrenadier divs use Hetzer in their TOE

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 4
RE: Hetzer - 12/30/2011 8:37:14 PM   
vaned74

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline 		Regardless, it appears that the Hungarians consider the Hetzer to be an assault gun, the Germans type it as a Tank Destroyer. I understand it was commonly used with Infantry Divisions like the Stug. I would think the simply fix would be Hetzer would be typed as an assault gun in future patches and thus be available for use. Over time, there will simply be hundreds, if not a thousand or more, rusting away in the pool because no TOE calls for them.

I think this is probably a design error in the late scenarios that were not tested thoroughly.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 5
RE: Hetzer - 12/31/2011 12:11:10 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		The Hungarian Hetzer was recently changed to an assault gun because it wasn't being used by the infantry divisions when it was a tank destroyer, because the infantry divisions use the Zrinyi initially I believe.

As to equipment in the pools: the Soviets can also see their pools (Lend-Lease and normal) grow substantially, especially later on with hundreds of AFV's being produced per week. Unless you're attacking units in forts with your Tank corps each turn, it's difficult to completely destroy a weekly output of AFV's.

For the Germans, the issue applies to only a fairly small number of units, because production rarely keeps up with losses for the common AFV's.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 6
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 10:27:30 AM   
PKH

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 11/17/2011
Status: offline 		Intentionally misclassifying units to get it to be used seems like a lame hack. I think it would be better to add support for optional units, where these units would be chosen based on a priority system if they are available, or some variation of this.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 7
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 12:47:47 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP


As to equipment in the pools: the Soviets can also see their pools (Lend-Lease and normal) grow substantially, especially later on with hundreds of AFV's being produced per week. Unless you're attacking units in forts with your Tank corps each turn, it's difficult to completely destroy a weekly output of AFV's.

For the Germans, the issue applies to only a fairly small number of units, because production rarely keeps up with losses for the common AFV's.


Did you really just equate the issue of German idle elements to Soviet surpluses?

The Soviets have elements in the pool because they make more than they need, and until they take sufficient LOSSES, the surplus accumulates. The Germans have elements in the pool because the replacement system is a sub-standard aspect of War in the East. German need goes unmet because of these arbitrary distinctions on what is what. I can show you pictures of unpainted Tiger 1s in Grossdeutschland at Kharkov and again in Tunisia... Germany got equipment into the field quickly, even to the point of logistically complicating their defense.

There's probably no down-side to Soviet surpluses, or very little considering you can make new units. For Germany, it is yet another 'little slight', that serves to drag German game-play down arbitrarily. The game consequence is, of course, that your bodies in the front aren't getting their gear so they're just dying in shallow foxholes rather than fighting in the tank that was meant for them.


_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 8
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 2:20:04 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Couple questions on this, one game related, one history.

RE: Game, the '44 TOE for the Panzer and PzG divisions include Jadgpanzer IVs, which is classified as a Tank Destroyer. Shouldn't these units, if there are not enough Jgpz IVs, pull Hetzers? If they don't, why not?

And, IRL, did Hetzers serve in Panzer and PzG divisions? I am certain they did, as I saw an SS Hetzer in the Imperial War Museum, but how widespread was this?

_____________________________


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 9
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 3:12:50 PM   
vaned74

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline 		You are correct Q-Ball - the Pz and Pzg divs will use Hetzers if necessary, however, there is seldom a need in 44 unless your panzer forces are trashed every turn. Production of JPZ-IV and especially IV/70s is sufficiently high enough to re-equip 1-2 divisions per week fully with JPZ-IVs.

My problem is I understood, and maybe I'm remembering wrong, was that the Hetzer was intended to be used to equip the 44TOE German infantry division with a TD capability. However, the TOE for German infantry does not call for it until the 1945 upgrades. In 44, the only infantry unit capable of using the Hetzer are the VG divisions (about 10-12 x ~10 Hetzers), eg net demand of about 100-120 TDs. I really think it should be classed as Aslt Gun like the Hungarians have it to at least have the interchangeability with the Stugs in the 44Inf TOE.

I am quite certain that if a division in 44 ran low on Stugs (as they will) and there were 500 Hetzers in the pool, someone at OKH would have authorized a substitution...the role expected by each vehicle was essentially the same.

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 10
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 4:57:54 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		I would say they would fit nicely in independent tank destroyer battalions?

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 11
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 5:00:12 PM   
vaned74

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline 		Yep, they would. However, the independent JPz battalions at this stage have upgraded to a TOE that only uses heavy TDs. Now I thought some Hetzers served in 741 and 743 Jpz battalions in reality, but, I'd need to go look again.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 12
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 5:11:52 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		I think they did.. They produced more then 2000 of them so they must have gone somewhere...



_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 13
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 5:12:50 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		They seem to have served on the eastern front starting early 1944... In my opinion this is a TOE mistake and should be corrected...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 14
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 5:34:34 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Now you guys are on the right track: Find out what units used them, and the TOEs can be changed.

They were made, they were used, had to go somewhere

_____________________________


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 15
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 5:50:41 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Did you really just equate the issue of German idle elements to Soviet surpluses?

The Soviets have elements in the pool because they make more than they need, and until they take sufficient LOSSES, the surplus accumulates. The Germans have elements in the pool because the replacement system is a sub-standard aspect of War in the East. German need goes unmet because of these arbitrary distinctions on what is what. I can show you pictures of unpainted Tiger 1s in Grossdeutschland at Kharkov and again in Tunisia... Germany got equipment into the field quickly, even to the point of logistically complicating their defense.


Helio, both sides have equipment magically appearing at the front as soon as production starts due to the current logistics system. The replacement system has little to nothing to do with the number of elements in the pool.

It's a TOE thing.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 16
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 11:00:09 PM   
Omat


Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

I think they did.. They produced more then 2000 of them so they must have gone somewhere...



Hello

Maybe this is interesting (sadly in german):
It is a list which shows, when which unit got Hetzer (May44 - April45:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/pz38-R.htm

Hope it helps

Omat


< Message edited by Omat -- 1/2/2012 12:49:57 AM >

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 17
RE: Hetzer - 1/1/2012 11:18:39 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		It's the list at the bottom of the page. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) was used as substitition for StuG for a short time in 1944 but most of them were used by the antitank-units of infantry or motorized divs or in independant anti-tank units.

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 18
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 1:13:34 AM   
jzardos


Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline 		What is really starting to upset me is the developers have shy'd away from being accountable for this possibility of large pools of very important equipment sitting in these abstract pools. This is a game breaker in some cases for the German player more so for the Soviet.  It's ridiculous that this type of situation could have ever resulted after play testing?  Did not one tester stand up and say 'This is nuts, why do I have 200 panthers and 100 tigers sitting in pools not getting used??'  (replace panthers and tigers with assault guns types if you so choose).

Please just give me one good reason why this was not uncovered and dealt with?  It's been 1 yr since the release and there have been many many posts about this issue and yet have seen nothing to deal or back up the developers decisions on this matter.




Just give the Axis player the ability to utilize their production pools? It's a game and this aspect should not be deprived from the Axis player. Insanity to argue against this point from a purely historical reference point.

< Message edited by jzardos -- 1/2/2012 1:15:45 AM >

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 19
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 2:14:15 AM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		I believe this has been dealt with, to some extent - by explaining that overall production totals were averaged out per month (whereas historically, production figures sometimes varied widely from month to month), so there would be instances where you might have overages sitting in the pools because of this.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 20
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 2:26:35 AM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		Yeah, because of how they used a constant average rate of production, there tends to be an effect where you rack up a lot of vehicles very early on because the production is already going full-blast from day 1, even if the formations that are assigned to use them do not exist yet.

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 21
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 7:15:57 AM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I believe this has been dealt with, to some extent - by explaining that overall production totals were averaged out per month (whereas historically, production figures sometimes varied widely from month to month), so there would be instances where you might have overages sitting in the pools because of this.



lol, umm
I think we know what is causing the pools to get larger.. yeah production. How is this even remotely helpful? Do you understand that what is needed is a solution to the pool problems? An explanation, although useful for those that don't know what is going on, is no closer to explain how silly it is for large pools of axis tanks and assault guns to accumulate and not get utilized. I have had this scenario in every game I've played as axis and I keeping thinking somebody sensible with the development of the game will put out a patch to fix this problem. Wishful thinking on my part, at best.

Just like jazardos, I'm very disappointed this problem has gone on for so long.

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/2/2012 7:18:59 AM >

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 22
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 8:47:25 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		At least several independent battalions used Hetzers in the east in 1944. My sources are sketchy but the way it is now (independent battalions all upgrading to Heavy Tank destroyers) is not correct.

Some should use regular tank destroyers (Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzers)..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 23
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 2:23:12 PM   
vaned74

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline 		Actually a simple solution to the whole thing that probably wouldn't require much new coding would be to allow players to set an "auto/manual" upgrade flag on ground units much like is set on air units. In this way, if a player is doing better than history ie for the Axis, he doesn't have to see his divisions or battalions upgrade to say the 45 panzer division with 45 tanks. Same thing would be true in the event of equipment management for the Jpz battalions. Right now, in early 44, all my Jpz battalions are heavy TD TOE; pretty much useless given how few heavy TDs are available, especially with production of Jagdpanther and Nashorn always rounding down by factory for west front withdrawals (ie Nashorn factory 3 only produces 1, every turn, no randomness and Jagdpanther of 2 factories of 3 produces only 2 per week, never a change).

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 24
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 2:55:23 PM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		If you allow the Axis player to create his own SUs, or to manually designate AFV models to be used, the interaction with the averaged production run could very well create a situation where the Axis player can start drawing upon his pools and using his hardware much earlier than is historical. One example would be Tiger tanks - they start production and thus accumulate in the pool long before any units show up that are designated to use them. That kind of effect might be as undesirable as the current state of affairs.

Of course, you could then introduce a sub-rule that you can't create any Tiger-using SUs or designate existing SUs to use Tigers before an official Tiger-using SU shows up according to the historical schedule, and so on for every other piece of hardware, but that adds yet another layer of complexity to the system.

(in reply to vaned74)
Post #: 25
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 5:08:44 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Here you have the age old simulation versus history argument. This has been in every WW2 game I can think of.

Fixed withdrawls, fixed upgrade paths etc.

I would love to have the freedom to choose which of my div withdraw. The 10th Panzer may have withdrawn in real life for rebuild, but in my game it might be my strongest Div or the one holding a critical junction. I would prefer to have "you must withdraw a Panzer Div on turn 11" screen. If you miss the date, due to combat etc, it will cost you 100 AP's per turn until withdraw occurs.

Upgrade paths, would love to have them opened up. I can see some abuse happening though. But make them slot specific to avoid. Heavy tank can tank heavy or lower. That way we don't have Uber div with 300 Tigers. Though I would love that. LOL. Medium can take med or light. Light only light. But there has to be a way so that the heavy tank slot I downgraded to Med due to lack of tanks can go back to heavy when I have them.

Independent tank BN's can take any tank, Stug limited to Stug's and assault guns.

But keep the use dates as a break on when a unit can use the vehicle.

And I really hate the forced TOE upgrades in size. I should be able to pick and choose. So that depending on what is happening, I can try to keep every unit at 1942 sizes or keep part of my forces at 1942 sizes.

These type of choices are the ones that would make the game much better overall. The Russian can tailor make his entire army, but the German is stuck with history.

Can't be too hard, if they could introduce PDU into WITP in a patch, it could be done here. PDU is player defined upgrades for those who do not know.


< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 1/2/2012 5:10:44 PM >

(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 26
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 6:19:27 PM   
TAIL_GUNNER

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Here you have the age old simulation versus history argument. This has been in every WW2 game I can think of.

Fixed withdrawls, fixed upgrade paths etc.

I would love to have the freedom to choose which of my div withdraw. The 10th Panzer may have withdrawn in real life for rebuild, but in my game it might be my strongest Div or the one holding a critical junction. I would prefer to have "you must withdraw a Panzer Div on turn 11" screen. If you miss the date, due to combat etc, it will cost you 100 AP's per turn until withdraw occurs.

Upgrade paths, would love to have them opened up. I can see some abuse happening though. But make them slot specific to avoid. Heavy tank can tank heavy or lower. That way we don't have Uber div with 300 Tigers. Though I would love that. LOL. Medium can take med or light. Light only light. But there has to be a way so that the heavy tank slot I downgraded to Med due to lack of tanks can go back to heavy when I have them.

Independent tank BN's can take any tank, Stug limited to Stug's and assault guns.

But keep the use dates as a break on when a unit can use the vehicle.

And I really hate the forced TOE upgrades in size. I should be able to pick and choose. So that depending on what is happening, I can try to keep every unit at 1942 sizes or keep part of my forces at 1942 sizes.

These type of choices are the ones that would make the game much better overall. The Russian can tailor make his entire army, but the German is stuck with history.

Can't be too hard, if they could introduce PDU into WITP in a patch, it could be done here. PDU is player defined upgrades for those who do not know.



It could be modded in...for SUs anyway.

It would not be too hard to add a slew of empty but varied SU reinforcements per turn. These would all go to OKH of course, and then the player could choose which to keep and which to disband.

It does however, add another layer of micromanagement...

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 27
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 6:40:24 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Only problem with that is it is really really hard to find someone to play a modded scenario. And then you have us people who have no modding time or shall I say ability.

I will admit that I am one of those people who hates hard coded choices like the above or the forced to do something because of history. But I really hate having to say a prayer or sacrifice a kid to the gods hoping my panzer div refits and fills out it's TOE with the best goodies available. But when I look at my pools and see several hundred armored vehicles sitting there while my units are sucking air it sends me into a fit. Or see a couple hundred really good armored vehicles in my pool but only a couple units can use them while the rest suck air for lack of "tanks".

(in reply to TAIL_GUNNER)
Post #: 28
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 7:12:59 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

What is really starting to upset me is the developers have shy'd away from being accountable for this possibility of large pools of very important equipment sitting in these abstract pools. This is a game breaker in some cases for the German player more so for the Soviet.  It's ridiculous that this type of situation could have ever resulted after play testing?  Did not one tester stand up and say 'This is nuts, why do I have 200 panthers and 100 tigers sitting in pools not getting used??'  (replace panthers and tigers with assault guns types if you so choose).

Please just give me one good reason why this was not uncovered and dealt with?  It's been 1 yr since the release and there have been many many posts about this issue and yet have seen nothing to deal or back up the developers decisions on this matter.




Just give the Axis player the ability to utilize their production pools? It's a game and this aspect should not be deprived from the Axis player. Insanity to argue against this point from a purely historical reference point.



I think Paulus and Gradenko have explained it, but I can show you an example of how I understand their explanation.

If you look at this http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm you will see that between April 1942 and August 1944 1349 Tigers were produced, i.e aprox 45 per month. Therefore the game during the first 10 months would give you 450 Tigers (corrected by the proportion that is not sent to the East Front, lets say 300 Tigers for the East Front). But in the real war, after 10 months only about 100 Tigers were made. In January 1943 there were only a few units equipped with Tigers, so most probably in the game you will have a surplus of Tigers, but they are representing, let`s say, “tanks that have not been produced yet”. There is no problem to fix, it is only a idealized/simplified figure to avoid the unnecessary coding of monthly production figures. If you are getting nervous about your unused Tigers, look at the webpage I mentioned to calm you down each time. Your unused Tigers probably do not exist yet.

I concede that the way the game is designed now might not allow you to reserve the use of all the Tigers you are allotted (let’s say 1000) for a last ditch defence of Germany in 1944-45, because perhaps there are not enough units to deploy 1000 Tigers simultaneously. I do not know if that is what upsets you.


< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/2/2012 7:16:03 PM >

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 29
RE: Hetzer - 1/2/2012 8:54:34 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		alfonso's explanation is a good one; the production system is abstracted. You can't form extra Tiger Battalions from unused pool, not because the German historically had Tigers sitting around, but because they just weren't there.

Back to the Hetzer: If someone can find a reliable source that the Hetzer was deployed to STUG units, or other units, besides the TOE in the game, then we should specify in this post, and I bet it will be researched and corrected in time.

_____________________________


(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Hetzer Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.469